About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
are warranted can we start proceedings to modify or repeal the really guide. as jon mentioned, through this process, we've repeal 37 rules and guides. we have it repealed an upgrade since 2004. i think we did that get the most serious cases first. but we have undertaken modifications with respect to other since the time. when i post reviews and plays in one proceeding considering amendment to the labeling requirements for the alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles and here we are assessing how to eliminate the need for firm redundant labels demanded by different agencies. in another instance, accelerated to review of our mechanism for mandating notification and reporting of mergers and we intend to initiate reviews of the leather marble staircase son. comments provided in this process overwhelmingly show business support for an uncovered the mechanism we fuse the moving guys themselves. at least in particular stand out as a means to reduce business burdens by what we regard to be the line that separates appropria
's paired with jon stewart on the daily show, done charlie road, he's done numerous talk shows, and he's incredibly adept at not answering questions. [laughter] but i'm going to try. >> i was waiting for a compliment. [laughter] >> that was a compliment. >> okay. >> that was a compliment. [laughter] you, you -- in the beginning of your remarks you talked about public diplomacy and what challenge it was for both our countries. you were quoted recently as talking about remarks you made at pakistan's national defense university where you asked your audience, um, who pakistan's enemy was. you asked them how many of them thought that al-qaeda was the enemy, and not too many raised their hands. you asked them whether india was the enemy, and not too many raised their hands, a few more. and then you asked them if the united states was the enemy, and that's where you got most of the hands raised. that is something in this country just find in explicable, just can't understand. they say, my gosh, we've given pakistan $20 billion over the past eight or nine years and, granted, that's kind of a p
, waste of government money. well, there is a reason that jon mccain and barack obama both voted for the bailout. it is not because of wall street. it is because the main street in the biggest car dealership in the country that stopped financing cars is about to get to the point where you could go to sears and buy any kind of appliance on credit. the financial system had to be saved. we don't want to go there again. so most people did know this. they said we hate these bailouts. the democrats passed a financial reform bill, which gave the government power over some transactions it did not have to stop excessive leverage, that is to stop companies from making too many investments they didn't have the cash to cover. traditional banks would own $10 for every dollar in cash. when bear stearns failed in his 30 to one. lehman brothers about four to one. that's what's really in a financial reform bill. and by the way, if somehow they get around this and fail again, nomar bailouts. here's an orderly procedure for bankruptcy in the management and shareholders have to beat the loss. in oth
.gton journal" host: we are back live jon hilsenrath of "the wall street journal." taking a look at this week's economic rebound, that is what the- taking a look at weak economic rebound. here is the headline from "the wall street journal" this morning, "companies bracing for the fall." guest: american companies are operating in a very >> they have already been disappointed by what happened in the first half of the year. i've been talking to companies in the last few days. i'm winnebago industries, a rv company, that was expected to have good spending in the first half. this didn't happen. they are back to deciding whether or not to cut back on that. what they don't want right now is uncertainty. that's what we are getting. >> host: you see the ups chief in todays "financial times" the small and mid sized companies that would be using his are pulling back. they are not sure. >> guest: right. this is largely, i think, because of the uncertainty they face. default, downgrade, you never now how investors are going to react. ironically what we have seen, investors have been calm. but the worry i
in all kinds of forms. he has paired with jon stewart on "the daily show." he has been on charlie rose and has is done inoperable talk shows and is incredibly adept at not answering questions that i want him to answer. [laughter] so i'm going to try. i'm going to try. >> i was waiting for a complement. [laughter] >> that was a compliment. that was a complement. in the beginning of your remarks he talked about public diplomacy and what a challenge it was for both our countries. you were quoted recently as talking about remarks he made at pakistan's national defense university where you asked your audience who pakistan's enemy was. u.s. them how many of them thought that al qaeda was the enemy and not too many raised their hands. u.s. them whether india was the enemy and not too many raised their hands in the new estimate the united states with the enemy and there is where you got most of the hands raised. i think that is something that people in this country just find inexplicable, just can't understand. they say my gosh we have given pakistan $20 billion over the past eight or nine yea
on a diet. i'm going to add calories to my excluded food intake." unquote. that was jon stewart. he hit the nail on the head. for sure it's easy to make fun but what the president is trying to do with tax expenditures is no laughing matter. liberals talk about tax expenditures as though they were just getting rid of wasteful spending. first, as a legal matter, tax expenditures are not spending. outlays are checks cut from the treasury department are defined as spending under the congressional budget act. that's what spending is. yet, most tax expenditures only lose revenue and do not include an outlay portion. tax expenditures that only lose revenue contain no spending as defined by the congressional budget act and is scored by the official scorekeepers for congress. the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office. and second, as a policy matter twhe comes to tax -- when it comes to tax expenditures, one person's loophole is another person's opportunity to save for college and retirement, finance a home and ties to your -- taoeugts -- tithes to your church. reducing
to my excluded food intake." unquote. that was jon stewart. he hit the nail on the head. for sure it's easy to make fun but what the president is trying to do with tax expenditures is no laughing matter. liberals talk about tax expenditures as though they were just getting rid of wasteful spending. first, as a legal matter, tax expenditures are not spending. outlays are checks cut from the treasury department are defined as spending under the congressional budget act. that's what spending is. yet, most tax expenditures only lose revenue and do not include an outlay portion. tax expenditures that only lose revenue contain no spending as defined by the congressional budget act and is scored by the official scorekeepers for congress. the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office. and second, as a policy matter twhe comes to tax -- when it comes to tax expenditures, one person's loophole is another person's opportunity to save for college and retirement, finance a home and ties to your -- taoeugts -- tithes to your church. reducing tax expenditures is a tax increase
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)